Self-defense training methodology

[Kong Soo Do]

What is your experience with Hapkido as a self defense training methodology? Have you studied Hapkido?

I understand Peter Boatman's course is geared primarily towards LEO. Also, do you have any personal experiences to share regarding the effectiveness of the Boatman course? Did taking the course save your life?

In my personal opinion, Hapkido is the most realistic of the Korean arts from the perspective of SD. I think Hapkido takes into consideration more possibilities and offers a wider range of solutions to potential problems. No disrespect to other KMA's.

I've studied Hapkido and Aikijujutsu. I can't give you an exact % but I would estimate that I've used HKD/AJJ principles and techniques 80%+ of the time i.e. joint locks, throws, sweeps etc.

I'm not a kicker, and can't ever remember kicking anyone. I've knee spiked people though.

I'm short on time at the moment, I'll get back to the Boatman question.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

In regards to Boatman, here is a short quote I placed on my board;

Circa 2000 I took an Edged Weapon Defense Instructor's program at S.E.P.S.I. which is our regional LEO training center. It was given by Peter Boatman of the North Hamptonshire P.D. in Great Britain. It was an excellent course and I've since put it into the Mu Shin Hyung.

Since taking the course, I've spoken with a gentleman by the name of Darren Laur, a police officer in Victoria B.C., Canada. He stated that he developed the system and that Mr. Boatman appropriated the system, failing to give him proper credit. Mr. Boatman is now deceased after taking his own life in an unrelated matter. Looking at the material on Mr. Laur's website Link it appears almost identical to the power point presentation (and my notes) at that S.E.P.S.I. seminar.

I do not know, nor can I conclusively say who is the actual author of the information. I cannot of course question Mr. Boatman, and have no wish to desparage anyone that has passed on. Additionally, I have no reason to disbelieve Mr. Laur. We spoke many years ago on a self-defense forum and he was forthright and I feel honest. So I give Mr. Laur the credit I beleive he is due on this matter.

In the end, it is valuable information that to my mind is a 'must read' for anyone in the martial arts that is serious about self-defense.

A member or my board also took the course at a different time than I did and offered a short comment;

I took a seminar from Mr. Boatman several years ago at a "High Liability Instructor's Course" in Orlando several years ago. His principles and techniques were sound.

His Brit stories were great.

I have not used this specific training in a life/death situation. But I have used a modified version for an effective control in a non-edged weapon altercation. I do know of people that have used it effectively in deadly force altercations. This training is now a part of our in-service training program.

He (Boatman) did target LEO for this training, both here and in GB and it had the informal label of 'Pat, Wrap and Attack'. I understand when he retired he went into private consulting. I do not know if he continued to teach and if so to what audience. I feel it would have been very useful to the normal private citizen since it was so easily learned. It was designed to be a brutal response to an edged weapon attack, but could also be useful in a non-edged weapon altercation i.e. someone punching you. And in a non-deadly force altercation the brutality of the response could have been backed down. And actually it would be quite useful after making the initial 'Pat, Wrap' to move directly into a balance displacement techniques. A chin hook, using the infra orbital or a knife hand take down (the terms we used to describe the technique) would have worked well due to how you end up in relation to you attacker.

I personally know people that have used S.P.E.A.R. in both non-deadly force and deadly force altercations. One example was a fellow Deputy that was sucker punched by a guy. The bad guy jumped into the Deputies cruiser and attempted to steal it. The Deputy jumped into the car and on top of the bad guy. The bad guy turned out to be an EDP. He lifted the Deputy and pressed him against the inside roof of the cruiser with his forearm across his throat. The Deputy stated that he began to lose consciousness. The amount of room in the cruiser was very small and tight as can be imagined with two grown men laying across both front seats, the computer, steering wheel, safety cage etc. He remembered the CQ elbow strikes from the S.P.E.A.R. program he'd taken the year before. It is an horizontal elbow strike that can be used even if you're almost nose to nose with someone. He used two strikes and the bad guy was knocked out.

The S.P.E.A.R. system including the CQ elbow strikes are now included in our in-service training. It has been effectively used in the jail as well.

The course that I got the most out of personally was the PCR course (Physical Conflict Resolution). It was all balance displacement stuff (Ken Good was on SEAL team six and an Aikijujutsu guy. His partner Sonny (don't remember last name) was a former Soviet Spetzna (sp?) and KGB agent). Upon reflection, this wouldn't be a course for someone that didn't have a foundation in some of the more 'soft' arts. Not that they wouldn't benefit from it, but having a HKD/AJJ/Chin Na foundation first really helps. It was more towards control than anything. But for me it was a good fit due to the side of the arts I've tend to gravitate towards. And I have used this type of training personally in the vast majority of my altercations. I'm a good striker (knife hand and elbow) but I'd rather not strike if I have other options. Ever since I tweaked my back doing heavy squats...my kicks suck. That's just straight up being honest. I was never Olympic quality and with a back that acts up from time to time...my kicking sucks. But then, I never kicked anyone anyway. I can knee spike like a Muay Thai fighter though! But I'd rather get a lock on someone if appropriate.

I would say that Boatman and S.P.E.A.R. would be great SD courses, either as a stand alone or small addition to a larger art, whereas PCR is more advanced. It is a good addition to someone who has had some time in the arts and could be a good addition to 'hard' arts that lack some of the 'softer' elements. Just my perspective.

I have placed elements and principles of the above into our one form, along with things learned from the arts. Some are very simple, others more advanced. My personal goal is to give the student something useable on the very first day. Not make them a master, but something useable. Then simply build on that and provide more 'meat' as they train. In other words, give the short time student enough to deal with more common attacks (at least things like avoidance, evasion, de-escalation, basic defenses and some gross motor skill 'offenses') and have enough 'advanced' stuff for the student in it for the long haul.

Hopefully this is making some sort of sense, its been a long day.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I believe he already said number 1, perhaps number 2 as well. I think he also said that the training holds so that you only have to do the refresher course every 18 months, not annually. As for one lengthy seminar, I believe he said a seminar would last anywhere from 8 to 24 hours and you would be good to go, that training for self defense does not require a long drawn out process like how we normally think of when we think of martial arts training, which can go on for decades or a lifetime.

Yes, thank you.

Let me use Hapkido as an example. Hapkido is what I would term an advanced art. You don't learn it in a weekend. It is an art that has principles that are usually taught in a building block manner i.e. you start simple and work into more advanced principles. That isnt' a bad thing, quite the opposite, it is an art that a person can really 'sink their teeth' into.

It doesn't matter if it is advanced or if it takes a year of five years to learn, If you don't train in it, then after a certain point, your skills diminish to a point that they are no longer reliable. Does it mean that they are entirely lost? No, but if you aren't training, you aren't prepared. I don't care what you study.

SD is usually simple and ugly. Let me use Boatman's edged weapon defense course. It is 16 hours long and you come out as one big bruise. But from the data, Officer injury rates in GB dropped from 87% to 16% in two years time. And the number of edged weapon altercations had gone up after implementation.

Do LEO in GB train in some fashion on a regular basis? If so, in what manner? How about in the US, where the majority of members are?

And what sort of statistics can you provide for civilians who take such courses and who do nothing more than the annual or every 18 month refresher course?

It isn't magic. It doesn't make supermen/women. It is just a plain, simple, ugly, brutal gross motor skill technique that works well in the field.

Not magic, but it takes more than 24 hours to learn to be able to reliably deal with a determined assailant, particularly an armed opponent. And such skills need to be maintained. As you said, it is not magic.

While techniques that rely on gross motor skill tend to be better suited to SD, you still need to train in them regularly. But if you aren't training, you aren't prepared. I don't care what you study. And taking an initial seminar, even a very intense one, and doing nothing more but following up with seminars every year to eighteen months does not count as training.

I suspect that the non physical elements from such seminars have a more lasting effect. People can put them into use immediately, establish them as habits and benefit greatly.

Also, I am sure that the physical experience brings with it a level of demystification for the layperson which will help them to keep from panicking. But once things go beyond avoidance and verbal deescalation, if you want to be prepared, you need to be training regularly, both in your skills and with resisting opponents.

And if you are relying on an initial seminar plus annual or every 18 months refresher courses and nothing else, then you are by no means even close to being prepared for an encounter iwth an armed assailant.

Is it better than a 'martial art' edged weapon defense that may take longer to learn? I don't know. I would like to find some real world data on various arts edged weapon defenses in real altercations. But it is difficult to find. But it is quick to learn and has been proven to still be highly useful even up to two years later after initial training. That is a pretty substantial return on the initial investment of 16 hours training. Again, not saying it is better, but I can't find data to say other stuff works X percent of the time. If anyone has something I would like to see it please. It would be good to have something of comparison.

Again, saying that it is proven two years after the initial training; proven how? With what sort of practice in the two years since the initial seminar?

Daniel

 

[Kong Soo Do]

It doesn't matter if it is advanced or if it takes a year of five years to learn, If you don't train in it, then after a certain point, your skills diminish to a point that they are no longer reliable. Does it mean that they are entirely lost? No, but if you aren't training, you aren't prepared. I don't care what you study.

Daniel,

I understand what you're saying here and I agree training is important. I'm not advocating a person only attend a weekend seminar and a refresher ever two years. What I am saying is that certain SD programs are taught that way (up to around 40 hours) and do have data that support their effectiveness long after the initial course. Now here is the caveat; the person needs to be serious about the class. I'm not suggesting a person can breeze in with a half-**** attitude and get the most out of the course. But a serious person, taking the course seriously will gain a lot of benefit.

I know that it seems training needs to be more often. And for some things that is probably true. But somethings apparently don't. I've mentioned the senior citizen that took out an armed robber at a 7-11. The guy was in his 70's at the time, never took MA's and probably wasn't in the best shape. The only training he's ever received was a short H2H course while training in the F.S.S.F. during WWII under Dermott 'Pat' O'Neill. He was able to recall that training decades later and use it successfully.

Would any of these programs be even better if trained regularly? Of course. But at least we have something that is viable for those that won't/don't train regularly. I wish everyone did!

Do LEO in GB train in some fashion on a regular basis? If so, in what manner? How about in the US, where the majority of members are?

And what sort of statistics can you provide for civilians who take such courses and who do nothing more than the annual or every 18 month refresher course?

The course I took was around 10 years ago, so I can only provide the data from that time. It was a 16 hour course. Refresher started out at 12 months and was back off to 18 months. Which I'm sure made the bean-counters happy. Our agency is 8 hours initially and 2-4 hours every 12-24 months depending on how training falls during that time.

If I were in charge, I'd like to do an hour per month. This comes from a study that proved that shooting 12 rounds per month was better than 120 rounds per year. That was a revolver-day study. That way the principles remain even fresher. But I'm not in charge...

For civilians? I don't know. I teach my students these principles and techniques. And of course, we train more often. But who else may teach Boatman's material to civilians, I don't know.

Not magic, but it takes more than 24 hours to learn to be able to reliably deal with a determined assailant, particularly an armed opponent. And such skills need to be maintained.

All I can say is that data indicates that some things can be learned in that time period and retained in long term memory. But again, regular training would only strengthen it.

I suspect that the non physical elements from such seminars have a more lasting effect.

I'm going to suggest just the opposite. Take a 40 hour course for example and let's compare that to an hour long class taken three times per week. That would equate to 3 1/2 months of 'normal' training, concentrated into a week. That is a lot of repetitions of whatever technique. I suspect that is why so much of it remains useable long after the training. And these sorts of courses (I can only speak for the ones I've taken) were basically, "Hi, my name is XYZ now let's get on the mats".

So what I'm doing is taking that training, putting it into a MA training methodology i.e. in our form and then applying it to a scenario based format. In this way, since we are SD focused, a student gets some field tested material that is usable quickly while also getting more advanced material to build onto it while training frequently. And at the same time inserting avoidance, evasion, escape, de-escalation, danger cues etc.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I also wanted to add a comment. Programs like S.P.E.A.R., WWII H2H, Boatman etc were designed around easily learned, gross motor skills. And if applied in a serious, robust fashion it's designed to overload an attacker by causing injury. To be blunt, they're designed to bleed you, bleed you fast and blow you out.

They are ideal for the user that isn't going to spend a lot of time...or any time in further training.

As I noted above, I've used Boatman's stuff but in a modified version where there was no damage and it lead to balance displacement stuff. You're not going to get that in a weekend. What I'm saying is actually backing up Puunui's position in regards to injuring an attacker. A novice with little training doesn't have the skills necessary to handle a situation with advanced control. He can learn to 'blast' someone in a short period of time, but it takes training to be able to handle a situation without 'blasting' someone.

So that is my perspective; give the novice something usable until they're no longer a novice. Then their options increase.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Daniel,

I understand what you're saying here and I agree training is important. I'm not advocating a person only attend a weekend seminar and a refresher ever two years. What I am saying is that certain SD programs are taught that way (up to around 40 hours) and do have data that support their effectiveness long after the initial course. Now here is the caveat; the person needs to be serious about the class. I'm not suggesting a person can breeze in with a half-**** attitude and get the most out of the course. But a serious person, taking the course seriously will gain a lot of benefit.

What kind of data? If you are talking about scenario 2; LEO/Military who take the initial course and the refresher, then you are talking about people who's professions put them in situations where they are much more likely to be encountering armed attackers, who have already received training, both in the course of getting into the profession, continued professional training of some kind, and on the job training.

I know that it seems training needs to be more often. And for some things that is probably true. But somethings apparently don't. I've mentioned the senior citizen that took out an armed robber at a 7-11. The guy was in his 70's at the time, never took MA's and probably wasn't in the best shape. The only training he's ever received was a short H2H course while training in the F.S.S.F. during WWII under Dermott 'Pat' O'Neill. He was able to recall that training decades later and use it successfully.

Would any of these programs be even better if trained regularly? Of course. But at least we have something that is viable for those that won't/don't train regularly. I wish everyone did!

I don't like to rely on anecdotes because for every anecdote that supports you there are ten that go the other way.

The course I took was around 10 years ago, so I can only provide the data from that time. It was a 16 hour course. Refresher started out at 12 months and was back off to 18 months. Which I'm sure made the bean-counters happy. Our agency is 8 hours initially and 2-4 hours every 12-24 months depending on how training falls during that time.

If I were in charge, I'd like to do an hour per month. This comes from a study that proved that shooting 12 rounds per month was better than 120 rounds per year. That was a revolver-day study. That way the principles remain even fresher. But I'm not in charge...

I would agree that the greater frequency would be more beneficial.

For civilians? I don't know. I teach my students these principles and techniques. And of course, we train more often. But who else may teach Boatman's material to civilians, I don't know.

Well, that is what we're talking about: civilians. This is what Puunui meant on another thread when he asked you to cite 'real world' examples. Civilians live in a very different world from that of LEO and military. So far, the only specific source that you have cited for the success of these programs is British law enforcement. People who live in a world where their life is on the line daily have a very different outlook and skill set from that of the average civilian who's greatest danger is most likely an automobile accident.

All I can say is that data indicates that some things can be learned in that time period and retained in long term memory. But again, regular training would only strengthen it.

Yes, I agree, but I am talking about more than long term memory. My long term memory of TKD was excellent. But when I went back to TKD after a lengthy absense, my skills were such that I simply started again as a white belt and made no mention of any prior rank that I had attained. And before my absense, I had trained fairly regularly for many years. I also practiced basics during my absense and I still was little better than a white belt student. Didn't take more than a couple of months to get back into the groove, but if I had had to execute cold without having been back in regular training, I would have been fumbling through my forms and my technique would have looked way less than decent.

Up until the point that I went back to class, however, I had no measure of how much my technique had degraded. It was a serious eye opener.

Also, when you say "data indicates" I have to ask; what data? And who interpreted it? Experts can look at the same data and arrive at different conclusions. The Gracies also said that "data indicates" that 90% or some such of all fights go to the ground. Who's data? LAPD! Sounds convincing until you realize that the data relates to arresting officers and suspects and not to general fights between random people. Not detracting from the Gracies, but they did use 'data' in a disingenuous way in order to market their system. The fact that their system is excellent doesn't change that.

I'm going to suggest just the opposite. Take a 40 hour course for example and let's compare that to an hour long class taken three times per week. That would equate to 3 1/2 months of 'normal' training, concentrated into a week. That is a lot of repetitions of whatever technique. I suspect that is why so much of it remains useable long after the training. And these sorts of courses (I can only speak for the ones I've taken) were basically, "Hi, my name is XYZ now let's get on the mats".

No, it wouldn't. A seminar is set up very differently from a regular class, and students are supposed to be practicing in between classes. Some dont, but those who are serious do. Conventional classes don't cover a system from beginning to end, not in a week, not in a month. Also, conventional classes generally are focusing on getting a smaller amount of material into permanent muscle memory.

So what I'm doing is taking that training, putting it into a MA training methodology i.e. in our form and then applying it to a scenario based format. In this way, since we are SD focused, a student gets some field tested material that is usable quickly while also getting more advanced material to build onto it while training frequently. And at the same time inserting avoidance, evasion, escape, de-escalation, danger cues etc.

I think that that is great, but that is not the same as a person taking one seminar and an annual refresher with nothing else in between.

Daniel

 

[oftheherd1]

...

I think that that is great, but that is not the same as a person taking one seminar and an annual refresher with nothing else in between.

Daniel

Not to agree or disagree, but a thought. When you refer to LEO and military, or even a serious civilian, what do you think the chances are they might in fact have things in between?

If in any situation that could go bad, they begin remembering their training, even as they seek non-physical ways out of the situation, do they not have something in between? Granted they won't be using the motor skill, but even reviewing mentally may help keep the skill, may it not?

Just curious what your thoughts are on that matter.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Not to agree or disagree, but a thought. When you refer to LEO and military, or even a serious civilian, what do you think the chances are they might in fact have things in between?

If in any situation that could go bad, they begin remembering their training, even as they seek non-physical ways out of the situation, do they not have something in between? Granted they won't be using the motor skill, but even reviewing mentally may help keep the skill, may it not?

Just curious what your thoughts are on that matter.

With civilians, it can range quite a bit. Not familiar enough with LEO or military to know the specifics of their training. As KSD is a deputy, I figure he can shed light on that.

My main thing is that if you want proficiency in something, you need more than an initial seminar, even a forty hour seminar, and annual refresher courses.

Daniel

 

[oftheherd1]

With civilians, it can range quite a bit. Not familiar enough with LEO or military to know the specifics of their training. As KSD is a deputy, I figure he can shed light on that.

My main thing is that if you want proficiency in something, you need more than an initial seminar, even a forty hour seminar, and annual refresher courses.

Daniel

No real argument. I was just curious what your opinion was. KSD seems to be saying he has statistics to show it works a suprising amount of times and I wondered if my scenario might account for it in your opinion. Granted, statistics can be manipulated by some with an agenda (not saying KSD did so, but maybe the schools).

Just this morning I heard on the radio that 1 in 4 children in the country are hungry, and we need to continue the free breakfasts and lunches for kids somehow. I also seem to recall that well over 25% of our children are obese. While possible, I have trouble personally, reconcilling that.

But thanks for your reply.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Daniel,

I think one thing you're overlooking with your TKD example is the complexity of the system. As you mentioned, you became rusty. But TKD is a system of blocks, strikes, kicks, a multitude of forms, one-step, two-step, three-step drills, hoshinsul, sparring etc. You may have been rusty, but I'll bet a lot was still in your muscle memory.

Also, using an hour long class as an example, of the hour perhaps 5-15 minutes are warming up and some physical stuff. Perhaps some lecture if something new is being taught. Some forms work or drills. A 40 course is probably 35-38 hours of mat time.

The programs I'm talking about about are very simplistic. Very few principles and/or techniques. It is less material being concentrated into a longer training time. That does make a difference.

Just some considerations

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Daniel,

I think one thing you're overlooking with your TKD example is the complexity of the system. As you mentioned, you became rusty. But TKD is a system of blocks, strikes, kicks, a multitude of forms, one-step, two-step, three-step drills, hoshinsul, sparring etc. You may have been rusty, but I'll bet a lot was still in your muscle memory.

One huge difference is that I practiced taekwondo for over fifteen years before my break, which is very different from a comparatively tiny amount of training (40 hours). Also, 40 hours is not enough time with resisting opponents to develop any meaningful skill unless you are training regularly in some fashion already, such as a Boatman class being taken by a taekwondo, hapkido, or karate student who attends regular class.

Also, using an hour long class as an example, of the hour perhaps 5-15 minutes are warming up and some physical stuff. Perhaps some lecture if something new is being taught. Some forms work or drills. A 40 course is probably 35-38 hours of mat time.

Yes, and then it abruptly stops. My point was that three months of taekwondo is probably focusing on substantially less material in a typical US school than the 40 hour course. Which is fine because you have at least another 21 months of class in the typical US TKD school.

The programs I'm talking about about are very simplistic. Very few principles and/or techniques. It is less material being concentrated into a longer training time. That does make a difference.

Longer than what? 40 hours is a much shorter training time than two years. And in 40 hours of taekwondo over the course of three months from the beginning, you are still probably looking at less material.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

No real argument. I was just curious what your opinion was. KSD seems to be saying he has statistics to show it works a suprising amount of times and I wondered if my scenario might account for it in your opinion. Granted, statistics can be manipulated by some with an agenda (not saying KSD did so, but maybe the schools).

The question is who's statistics and statistics of whom?

Just this morning I heard on the radio that 1 in 4 children in the country are hungry, and we need to continue the free breakfasts and lunches for kids somehow. I also seem to recall that well over 25% of our children are obese. While possible, I have trouble personally, reconcilling that.

But thanks for your reply.

Now you have two separate sets of statistics, both of which are likely true. One in four children being hungry in the middle of a recession and double digit unemployment numbers isn't really all that surprising.

Given what I see of kids around my area, a 25% obesity figure would also seem average.

Keep in mind that the people who provide these figures are also trying to promote a cause of some kind.

A question that I always have is, how many people did the study sample? Neither number comes from a sampling of all children in the US.

So with KSD's data, the question is how big is the sampling group. I seriously doubt that it sample every person who ever took the class, and he doesn't seem to be implying that either.

I believe that he answered that and that the figures were from British law enforcement. If am mistaken (quite possible), he may clarify.

Regardless of where the data came from, one thing that is certain is that it is not from his school because he has already indicated that he does not train his students in that manner; he teaches students on a regular basis who may be with him for a year or more, and he has integrated material from these courses into his curriculum.

I think that the point that he is trying to make is that taking such a course, even it its the only thing you ever do, is a good idea.

Daniel

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I think that the point that he is trying to make is that taking such a course, even it its the only thing you ever do, is a good idea.

That's a good way to put it actually. Something is better than nothing

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

That's a good way to put it actually. Something is better than nothing

I have mixed feelings on that. I think in some ways, yes. Particularly in the fact that a well done course can demystify a lot for an untrained person.

In some ways, however, no. I just don't see a 40 hour class as being enough time build in effective muscle memory.

Daniel

 

[OKenpo942]

KSD, I hear you man. I am a LEO and Defensive Tactics instructor for my agency.

I think the problem in the translation here is that you are speaking to martial artists who have a history of studying their respective arts. The martial artist is like the upper brass whoo have forgotten where they came from.

Martial artists with a lot of training are in the mindset of learning a system and developing a complex skill set along with the "why" and "what ifs" (the principles). They also get so caught up in being the "expert" in what they do, that they cannot or will not accept that simple motor skills can and are effective to a certain demographic. Not everyone has or makes the time to study an art, but most are interested in learning a little something that can help in crunch time. We also tend to put ourselves up against other martial artists. These seminars, if you will, are for them.

The average "civilian" really has no clue what it is that we really do as LEOs and the amount of training it takes, not just to do the job as a newbie, but also the continued training it requires as we continue in our careers.

That being said, along with all of the other training, or in the case of the "soccer mom", the busy schedule, It is very good to have a basic understanding of primitive self defense skills even if you can't dedicate several hours a week to it.

I know it may hard to believe for some, but a lot of these skills are effective. LEOs use them every day to survive confrontations on the street or to effect an arrest that needs to be made on a noncompliant subject. Sorry, but it is true.

Some of my partners whose only training is what they recieved in the academy and a couple refresher courses are quite capable in hand to hand situations. Maybe not as skilled as many of us in this forum, but they are probably, in most cases, better at retaining their sidearm and more proficient with its use when needed, thus the overall effectiveness of the courses that KSD is referring.

Thanks,

James.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Okenpo, I'm not sure who or what your post is addressing, but what is your opinion of taking a class such as KSD describes in a format of one initial seminar an annual follow up classes?

Also, as LEO, what sort of regular training do you receive?

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

KSD, I hear you man. I am a LEO and Defensive Tactics instructor for my agency.

I think the problem in the translation here is that you are speaking to martial artists who have a history of studying their respective arts. The martial artist is like the upper brass whoo have forgotten where they came from.

Cannot speak for others, but I am not a martial artist. Hapkido and taekwondo have little to no martial application. Martial as in used in war. The one art that I practice and teach that has 'martial application' is archaic, so without a time machine, it is more about preservation of archaic skills and self improvement than anything else.

Self defense is not 'martial.' Nor is one on one fighting. Most "martial arts" are better termed as fighting systems.

I am an instructor. Period. Unless you are making films with your skill or doing some kind of martial ballet, or some other endeavor that mixes the martial with the artistic, you are a taekwondin, karateka, hapkidoin, aikidoka, or whatever.

Martial artists with a lot of training are in the mindset of learning a system and developing a complex skill set along with the "why" and "what ifs" (the principles). They also get so caught up in being the "expert" in what they do, that they cannot or will not accept that simple motor skills can and are effective to a certain demographic.

Not universally, but that element certainly exists, and it is definitely not limited to MA.

My students get the most time logged on fairly basic stuff. Complex techniques are of little use if you cannot use them during adrenaline dump or is you have so much material to practice that you do everything fair and none of it well.

Not everyone has or makes the time to study an art, but most are interested in learning a little something that can help in crunch time. We also tend to put ourselves up against other martial artists. These seminars, if you will, are for them.

Absolutely true, and such seminars are good. But if you take the seminar and do nothing to reinforce those skills whatsoever for a year to eighteen months, I question how much you will retain the physical skills. I say that as an instructor who has seen students miss several months of class and have seen how much their skills can deteriorate without consistent practice, not as an expert.

I have also seen how easy it is to pick up bad habits that can be your undoing when nobody is giving you correction.

As I pointed out, KSD is running what seems to be a pretty thorough and well put together program, not a take it once and hope that it sticks for a year to eighteen months.

Daniel

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Also, as LEO, what sort of regular training do you receive?
Daniel

Commenting only on my own and local;

If memory serves, a recruit receives 106 hours of Defensive Tactics in the academy. Initial firearms is about the same with additional, specific training once they reach their agency. We have a system in place where training now occurs annually in either 16 or 24 hour blocks. This would include things like CPR refresher (first responder and AED), Taser, O.C., Baton and/or ASP, D.T. and Firearms.

The D.T. for in-service is a combination of things such as S.P.E.A.R., Boatman, Lambria (ground fighting/stabilization) and some other CQ stuff. Nothing fancy and all gross motor skill. The firearms has turned towards Israeli training (which I'm an instructor) and it is top notch.

Officers have the opportunity to take specialized courses from time to time at S.E.P.S.I. (SouthEastern Public Safety Institute) at St. Petersburg College. As an example, over the years I've taken;

• S.P.E.A.R. instructor
• PCR instructor
• Boatman edged weapon defense instructor
• FDLE D.T. and Firearms instructor
• ISI Israeli Firearms instructor
• ISI Krav Maga instructor

Each of those were either 40 or 80 hours long except for Boatman which was 16 hours. Those are instructor-only level courses, non-instructor level courses are also available for line staff.

If I were not an instructor, and didn't train on my own, I would receive either 16 or 24 hours of training annually as a refresher. There are always the 'lazy' exceptions, but by and large this is enough to maintain proficency in these skills.

Of course, more frequent training will always be beneficial.

 

[puunui]

That being said, along with all of the other training, or in the case of the "soccer mom", the busy schedule, It is very good to have a basic understanding of primitive self defense skills even if you can't dedicate several hours a week to it.

Why does the soccer mom have to have a basic understanding of primitive self defense skills? I never played soccer, but my mother doesn't have any understanding of physical self defense, and she has never been in an altercation in her life. Neither has my father. Should they take a self defense course? Would it be good for them?

 

[oftheherd1]

Why does the soccer mom have to have a basic understanding of primitive self defense skills? I never played soccer, but my mother doesn't have any understanding of physical self defense, and she has never been in an altercation in her life. Neither has my father. Should they take a self defense course? Would it be good for them?

Good grief sir!